Jed McKenna’s opinion of enlightenment
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
I recently got my hands on Jed McKenna’s original trilogy, I know I’m running a couple of decades after the facts, but there were some nuggets in the first book (Spiritual Enlightenment, The Damnedest Thing) I wanted to discuss. I’m paraphrasing slightly because I am reading the Dutch version. Some bits from the book:
“The search for enlightenment has been one of the biggest disasters in history in terms of the amount of effort for the number of successes.”
“It makes sense to ask of a guru or school before you start there, what is your success rate?”
“Stripped of romance and imagination, the search for enlightenment begins with looking for what we know to be true.”
“Religions are merely shepherds trying to keep the sheep from straying.”
“Searching for enlightenment is a brutal affair, which involves searching internally until the seeker has no more questions.”
I’ve found it somewhat refreshing and entertaining to read. He continually works at breaking down the usually-held opinions on religion, such as the ideas of progress, the vagueness of people’s goals and questions, and the writer is obviously very familiar with spiritual literature and spiritual search and zen and Hinduism.
The book seems to ask a number of questions that are worth asking, before you get carried away in the search for enlightenment. It seems to be somewhat similar to Sri Ramana Maharshi’s method of self-inquiry so it could be classed under neo Advaita.
Yet I wonder if it is possible to “think your way to enlightenment”, or whether leading there is any form of predictable or repeatable process.
Comments
A few other threads which seem relevant…
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/12547/jed-mckennas-enlightenment
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/27261/jed-mckenna-s-play
Just a thought:
Too many folk search for enlightenment in a manner somewhat like chasing a cat. The more they chase, the more the cat runs away. Enlightenment is really a process rather than a goal. The Bodhisattva way is a model to copy, each in our own way. Nurture, Compassion, Mercy, Understanding...In seeking enlightenment, we must practice the aspects of enlightenment, allowing it to grow within us. One need not be a Buddhist to become enlightened. But, as Buddhists, it is our way - to enable and allow the Buddha nature, the awakening, the enlightenment to emerge from within.
Of course, I speak or write as a Buddhist because we are all Buddhists or interested in the Buddhist way.
Again, don't chase the cat. The ca will come to you.
Peace to all
I liked JedMckenna and also found the books both illuminating and fun. I've no clue what to make of his pseudonymous authorship or the fact that the students and ashram referenced in the book are likely made up according to sources I've read. But, even if the author made up the Jed Mckenna character and story, it still seems like a valuable resource.
Betraying my Zen-flavored inclinations....
Trying to think one's way to enlightenment is like looking for the right wild fox to care for a henhouse.
The search for a mind-controlled enlightenment is most commonly limited by an underlying ego assumption that it's actually something that can be possessed.
Even the intellectual Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism lets go of intellectualization in their practice. In their analytical style of meditation, similar to forms of metta meditation, the intellect is used to cultivate and bring about certain states, but then the intellect is let go of and direct experience is dwelt in and familiarized with. The word in Tibetan for meditation is gom, which translates as familiarize. The scholarly and philosophical pursuit of an understanding of emptiness is only useful in its service to allowing one access to a direct perception of emptiness.
To push back on some of McKenna's questions. Pretty much all traditional Buddhists view their practice within the frame of multiple lives, so asking for or expecting many truly enlightened beings isn't all that relevant. And religions can act as shepherds, that isn't the same as saying religions are merely that. They are other things too.
Firstly one must ask what is enlightenment?
Otherwise one would be doing this ... just another goal.
McKenna puts forward a process of writing and rewriting, a written search for truth through all concepts and assumptions until no questions remain.
He also talks about Zen as if it’s in two flavours, the packaging of Zen items which is mostly commercial and for sale, and the real Zen which is a no-holds-barred search for enlightenment.
In the end though I think that Jed McKenna’s approach to enlightenment has a lot in common with what U.G. Krishnamurti experienced and talked about. Both are a kind of ‘drain cleaner’ for the mind, taking an unsentimental view of enlightenment topics.
I find it a definite contrast with Osho, who was often much more heart-centred in his approach, although he too could be quite rough with political types and priests. That sense of a clear vision while still carrying love, I find lacking in Jed McKenna. And I think he misses the point of enlightenment there.
I believe that what is at the root of life is love and compassion, but thought and habit have a tendency to bury it under layers of rationality and selfishness and ruthlessness and trade-mindedness. We just aren’t clever enough to learn these lessons the right way. The whole self-interested perspective of ‘what’s in it for me’ that we learn from life is what buries what we learn from our mothers as a baby.
My feeling is there must be a way to combine a deeply loving, compassionate nature with the clarity of an enlightened perspective.